Copyright, Disclaimer & Terms of Use

This blog does not operate for commercial purpose, but focuses on referee education and information only.

If you feel that any content is belonging to you exclusively or is misplaced, please contact us immediately so that we can remove it!

This also counts for comments which restrict you in your dignity and liberty, which are abusive or insultive. Sometimes such types of comments are not directly seen by this blog's administrators. In order to make them be removed as soon as possible, you can contact us via mail (see above).

70
Comments:

Huge game for Mažić bearing in mind he has only been in the Elite Category for about five months. However, I have no doubts that he is the right man for the job.As for Björn Kuipers, another Anglo-German top clash. He seeems to be UEFA's first choice for the games hese days.

Istrvan Vad finally back in CL after two years, his last match was in 2011: Plzen - Milan. He paid the missed goal by Ukraine at EURO2012, but now it seems that UEFA doesn't rely on him so much. A normal observer and not the best match possible.

It seems to me clear what happened behind closed doors. It is not difficult to guess.Collina was quite embarrassed when he had to explain to people why Vad had missed the goal. Then, this was the cause of his suspension. The mistake made by Vad was a big damage for UEFA, they were proud of AARs prior to Euro 2012, unluckily missing the goal the reputation of thie experiment was highly damaged.The fact that he is back in CL is anyway good for him.

I agree about the interpretation for Moen.But still...Batta was already appointed two weeks ago. Given the assumption that UEFA was unaware that Proenca would miss MD4 by 100%..why did they plan to send Batta for Proenca? I really have no explanation except Mr Batta wanted to do some sight-seeing in London and never saw Stamford Bridge ;-)

Benquerença is appointed for the other match of the same group, so this is a further hint that Proença was going to handle Chelsea - Schalke.As for Batta: I don't see the need to find a motivation. Sometimes Elite officials in top clashes (we can consider Chelsea - Schalke as such) are assessed by committee members or anyway important observers... the same goes, for example, for Mazic in Barcelona (Sajin).

Hagen with a very good performance. Correct penalty for a clearly deliberate handball, correct decision to only show a YC instead of a possible RC for dogso, good foul detection, good match control and sovereign appearance. I have only doubts on minute 88, a possible penalty (Hulk was maybe fouled) close to AAR1. I have to check that. But if correct, the mark will be high.

I'm sure mr Sajn will back up Mazic's side, because the decision about penalty is acceptable.In fact, whenever the referee blows something in favor of Neymar, Young, Ronaldo, Pedro the public always mention diving. Yes, they are divers but that does not mean that fouls on them does not exist, but that they always increase the volume of contact.I'm sure that, in this case,mr Mazic saw the situation good, because he was very close and had a good angle to see.

Yes, Mazic was absolutely right to call that penalty kick. I don`t know if you could see camera behind the goal but here on Fox Sport we had that angle. Here is the picture for you to see: http://flic.kr/p/hr9FNEYou can see the defender's hand on attacker shoulder. And referee was just behind with perfect angle to see that.

Kuipers had a strange match to handle especially after Arsenal's goal. There are 3 penalty appeals by both teams. The first one (68') is nothing. The second one (79') is more tricky (even though the BVB GK doesn't really want to hit his opponent and finally another one at min. 94 with Lewandowski but again I go with the referee.

I agree. 79' is very tricky, but I think, referring to the letters of the lotg it was a penalty, although it was an "accident". But during the whole match imo Kuipers had for him unusual problems with the assessment of duels. Especially when the players attack their opponent too hard, but although touch the ball in some point of the duel. Also the decision(s) not to send off Arteta with a second YC seems questionable to me. I've already seen better performances by the dutchman.

Looked at Kuipers' match on tv yesterday and thought that he overall made a good impression in relatively bad weather conditions. The penalty situation in the end never looked like a penaty when I saw it live, but things changed when looking at replays. Although replays often make situations look more severe than otherwise, I must say that I would not have objected if Kuipers would have given the penalty there. So, presumably a 8.4 performance, and then it comes to how the final penalty situation is assessed whether it will be a 7.9 or an 8.4. I presumably would have to see the situation again several times to make up my mind, so I fully understand it was a very difficult call to make for him, and the best view probably was behind the goal as well.

Swedish observer with all due respect IMO Kuipers was below his usual standards. Arteta gets the first YC for excessive pulling (correct) but Reus doesn't get a card for the same offence. Moreover I can't understand how Arteta stayed at the match when he escaped 3 times the 2nd YC. The only situation I have to review before my report is at min. 79'.

To me it looked like clear penalty "at a first glance". I didn't have any doubts, after replays I was wondering more how Cuipers missed it. He shold have been more on the left, but for his AAR it was so obvious. Lack of ...

We have our different ways of seeing a match. Sure there were some inconsistencies - as in every match - but I still think Kuipers was good. 79 minute situation is no penalty for me, but I can understand if someone has the opposite view.

Not the best I have seen Kuipers, but still good. The final penalty situation is my only concern, but I will not be able to review that decision now. It is either 7.9 or 8.3-8.4 (probably 8.3) in my book.

Karasev had a quite lenient approach in Napoli - Marseille.He tried to let the game flow, allowing a certain physical play, but at the end I recognized a clear mistake. Prior to the 1-0 goal scored by Napoli, there is a missed foul by Inler on the opponent. For me, even though you try to whistle less, this is always a foul. Nur will have his say :)Apaert from that, not crucial situations in the area. A handball was correctly evaluated unintentional, but it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned.Assistant referee 1 Kalugin with some difficult calls in first half especially on Higuain. Sometimes there weren't replays, nevertheless the feeling is that at least one flag was wrong.Very good NO FLAG prior to the 3-2 scored by Higuain.

Milorad Mazic is a great referee, but the match Barcelona-Milan was too big challenge for him. Suddenly, we saw that his assistants are not so good, precise and secure as all of us thought according to their earlier games and also that Mazic himself is pretty overrated in last months.

Of course, he is among European top officials, maybe he should be on the shortlist for FIFA WC 2014, but ...... I'm not so sure that he is safe bet for Brazil.

I'm curious also what UEFA means about the match Red Star-Partizan in Serbian League 4 days ago, when Mazic let the game to go on in the second half while there was fire on 5-6 places on the stadium Marakana during the match, which was apsolutely unsecure for all of people on the stadium, including players on the pitch.

@DNAbsolutely right about assistants,but Mazic isnt overrated these days.All decisions he made were good,including penalty for Neimar.Second goal is minimal offside,thats true.But,please dont speak about bad Mazic performance,it was at least expected.Very good control of the match,man managment,crucial decisions also good.Greetings

DNWhere did I mention bad performance of Mazic today? But, as I know, AR's contribution could be crucial about his whole, not only WC perspective. And please don't be like majority here and don't make conclusions based on simpathies or antypathies.And yes, Mazic is great referee..

Concerning the Penalty for Atletico: IMO it should have been a red card for DOGSO, because foul is at about 7m in front of the goal and no other defender would have been able to attack the forward before he could shoot on the goal.

I did not see Mazic's match and only want to comment on the penalty decision. In my opinion, it was way no penalty. Eriksson had more arguments in the last minute of Ajax-Milan to whistle a penalty...With more match preparation, he could have had a closer eye on Neymar.

I have seen the match full. Let me also say my ideas, I believe he had problems with big decisions otherwise he was ok with foul detection, cards and control.I also believe penalty whistled doesn't exist. Yes, there is a contact with the arms but I think it is not enough for a penalty. Additionally, I think foul that yielded Barcelona's 2nd goal comes from a missed foul of Neymar (Neymar fouls beforehand, IMO). The goal is also offside, but it is really tight I cant say a lot on AR1 on this case.

Catagay, Niclas, only controversial in the game is whether there is an offense- that he exists. Where is offens? In the box. There isn't whether the " contact " is sufficient or not, but whether the offense! IMO, the offense is obvious. Don't see only the one who doesn't want to see him.

With that approach, there should be multiple penalty kicks per match because at corner kicks, for example, 10 holding infringements would appear at the same time. That's what I said yesterday or the day before...common sense. What made Neymar fall? Was the contact enough for a penalty? Did I suit to the referee's line? Only reading the laws won't help.

Off topic: Svein Oddvar Moen will referee the norwegian cup final for the second time in five years, 24th of November. Frank Andås and Kim Thomas Haglund will be the assistant referees. Regards from Norway

I want to share my view about incidents in Barcelona - Milan and Real Sociedad - Manchester United matches.

In case of Milorad Mazic' game, the replays of foul after which the penalty was given are not clear. However, looking carefully at overall view in real pace one can have a strong feeling there was a foul on Neymar. Take a look on this screenshot: http://pbrd.co/HLbdQr

It's clear that Abbate more or less fouled Neymar, therefore penalty decision is acceptable if not simply correct in my book. Here I would go with the referee and would never call it mistake.

The second situation is more difficult. Young is slightly touched and that shouldn't cause such reaction as falling down. However, also here the contact which intention is to unfairly stop an opponent exists. Therefore, it's another situation where observer should back the referee and say it's OK decision to whistle it.

That all doesn't mean I like such penalties. Personally, I wouldn't give the 'Rizzoli's one' but would give 'Mazic' one'. It's question of taste, of course. However, I want to repeat it again: observer must be always with the referee and hence both penalties should be evaluated as correct decisions in my humble opinion.

Of course, your arguments are valid.Observers must stay always in favor of referees, as long as a decision is correctly according to the laws of the game. Under this point of view, each decision can be accepted, if an observer wants to do that. The soft pulling by Abate can be enough.Mazic decision would be justified. But the problem is different: in a big contest like UEFA is, referees must find consistency. It is clear that each penalty can be justified by a minimal touch or something like that.But if you give all these penalties, then you have to be consistent in each match you handle. Am I wrong or not?Let's make an example: prior to a corner kick, or sometimes free kick, how many hiolding the shirts you can notice in the area?A player could fall down immediately getting a penalty. Not good.We said almost the same things one year ago when Kuipers whistled the penalty in Barcelona - Milan (again this match, and again the same final score, 3-1) . According to the laws, correct penalty, but in the reality of the facts, one should always whistle situations like these.

Dear Hubertyou are right saying "replays not clear". That's the point. Many people on this blog are saying wrong penalty. Based on what? We are sure that tv cameras missed the moment of the offense. We must trust Mazic because he was close to play.

I could read here that some of the you think that AR's were weak part of Mazic team. So I did some game analysis:AR1 19th minute, http://flic.kr/p/hrUNGFAR1 34th minute, http://flic.kr/p/hrUNGFAR1 39th GOAL, http://flic.kr/p/hrUNyK-------------------------------------------------------------AR2 49th minute, http://flic.kr/p/hrVrtf and few sec later http://flic.kr/p/hrW2hrAR2 52nd minute, http://flic.kr/p/hrW2g4AR2 58th minute, http://flic.kr/p/hrUN1RAR2 59th minute, http://flic.kr/p/hrW25TAR2 75th minute, http://flic.kr/p/hrW24k

I've found only 2 situations where I can not be sure what to call. Now when we can see those moments again we can discuss.What do you think?

First of all this was a great work.Penalty kick is now indisputable.Calls made by assistants were excellent for such tight situations and this gives us a picture on difficulty and importance of their role .However, from my point of view the call made by AR1 in minute 39 was wrong. And in comparison with other ones I dare to say this was "the easiest" one since the ball was kicked from the state of inaction.Regards

For me it seems that AR1 is never in line! He is 2-3 meters away from the second last defender in the first clip.

AR2 is also not in line in one situation. As well the last clip is never offside despite you say that upper body is in offside position. You can see that the player nearest on the picture, AC Milan defender stands on the line but the Barcelona player is outside the line.

Weakness of the team.

For the penalty you can always find pictures as well from Rizzoli incident and describe that as correct decision and find every corner kick taken and battle in the penalty area and show pictures of pulling and tell it's correct.

It sounds like work of Serbians justifying bad decisions instead of learning from mistakes.

Thank you very much for posting all this stuff. Very insightful, even though this offside line is for example wrong: http://flic.kr/p/hrW2g4.In my opinion, with a bit visual spatial imagination, the goal was offside. Of course this angle does not allow a final judgment but I am quite sure. Concerning AR positioning, in one situation it is indeed very bad, in other situations the screenshot ignores that it could have been a high pace action where the AR had to stop and run back...every AR online here will know that.Concerning the penalty, anonymous has said it, screenshots have not the ability to reveal whether an infringement has occurred or has not occurred. Therefore this does not help us at all.Nonetheless thanks for your good job.

But everyone should agree that having such screenshots someone must be total ignorant or don't like Mr. Mazic to say it's a clear/crucial mistake. We can debate whether it's correct or wrong (however, screens proof Abbate wasn't interested in fair fight for the ball and even didn't protest much against this call), but you often say: in dubio pro ref. Why not in this case?!

In contrary to some users, I think that searching positives is good and shouldn't be called as creating good PR for Serbian referees.

In dubio pro ref applies when you have doubts as observer. Personally, I am convinced that it was no penalty but recognize and respect that there are other point of views.My feeling is that decisions taken by Mr Mazic are more intensely discussed here than other officials' decisions. That is because in the community there is a strong part who is favouring this referee - nothing bad about that, he is a good referee. But in some moments it is and specially was not fun anymore. And open your eyes, in many moments this blog was abused for PR by some parts of the community...and I furthermore got the feedback from many referees following this blog that this circumstance is getting on their nerves. 100% agreed on your last sentence.

@Hubert, @Niclas, @Anonymous, a few days ago we had discussion about Barcelona-Milan game at the referee's clinic, and I just wanted to share that with you. Next time when we do some other UEFA game with a different referee team, I can post it here so you wouldn't get some PR ideas. Final conclusions were that some things could be better, for example the AR's positioning, but that they are a young team and there is a space for progress. Greetings from the USA.

Yes I and probably many others here, too, would appreciate if you could do the same in future for other matches as well.The remark regarding PR was not meant into your specific direction but more related to things happening in the past.

When you come for the first time to tell everyone how good Mazic AR are and put screenshot with it, even if you try to hide your Serbian PR thing and put other matches in the future, it won't work. It's too obvious so far.

What we have to do is to be more objective instead of PR every time. It has been like this since Mazic got the attention he deserved. Mazic is a great referee and I think he's done a remarkable job the last two years.

BUT.

It doesn't change the fact that he doesn't need PR people coming from Serbia over and over and over and more then 5-10 people praising his work when he doesn't deserve it.

He's deserve his praise in the past and he will deserve praise in the future but he and his team made a mistake at Barcelona. That's just something that happens to everyone. If you want to become better you have to learn from mistakes, not justifying them on www.footballrefereeing.blogspot.com.

I haven't seen Svein Oddvar Moen getting heeps of praises despite he's been in the Elite for 2 years only 34 years of age. If he would be Serbian he would probably be running for the presidency.

Mazic is blooming at the age of 40 years old. He's old and experienced referee. He's not 30 year old who needs confidence by his fellow countryman to feel better.